Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (23037)	7/23/2003 12:43:51 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

x- It appears to go hand in glove with extremity of position. would that glove happen to have sequins on it? <grabs his elf by an extremity> -ep

To: epicure who wrote (23037)	7/23/2003 12:53:57 PM
From: lurqer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 89467

impotent anger By itself, anger rarely leads to the most effective solutions. Probably something about the secretions of various glands during anger preventing higher brain function. OTOH, it’s easy to see from where the anger stems. People have been killed. People are still dying. Our country has become an international pariah. Into the Tar Baby, “up to our elbows”, and the neo-cons want us to become even more ensnared. And all of this is supposed to make us “more secure”. Yeah, its easy to see from where this anger is coming. After the Party convention in ’68, I saw anger in the eyes of McCarthy supporters as they screamed “Don’t vote, Humphrey and Nixon are just the same”. I tried to explain that such a position was tantamount to voting for the war. That without their vote (and many more like them), Nixon would win, and the war would still be going on in ’72 - the next election., with many more deaths. That by their action, they were guaranteeing the deaths of many innocent people. Anger precluded hearing my argument. It would be trivial to just “let it all hang out”. and start calling some of those more supportive of the war, murders. Murders because their continued support is killing both Iraqis and US troops. But what is this likely to accomplish? I suspect only a hardening of attitudes, and hence, a prolongation of the occupation. Unfortunately I’m not trained in debate, but science – which settles arguments by measurement rather than skillful “conversation”. Limited skills however, doesn’t remove a moral obligation, and we have a political year in front of us. “Each, to his own” – no matter “how small the part”. JMO lurqer